Fear-Mongering And Ulterior Motives: Who’s Getting Played in Debate Over Minimum Lot Size Reduction?
Share News:
We can tell you what was said during a Dallas City Council discussion last week on expanding housing development options and reducing minimum lot size requirements. We’ve pulled some great quotes from the two-hour briefing and heard what residents on both sides have to say.
But you still might walk away wondering what’s really going on.
A Jan. 31 staff presentation was prompted by a five-signature memorandum authored by District 1 Councilman Chad West and signed by council members Jaime Resendez, Adam Bazaldua, Paula Blackmon, and Jaynie Schultz.
West said the purpose of the memo was to begin discussions on “how we could utilize infill properties in Dallas to encourage two-, three-, and fourplex development and how we might reconsider our 1950s and 1960s-era minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet for homes.”
Sounds rather innocuous, right? Not so fast.
“Due to some fears by council members surrounding even having these conversations, this discussion started off in a rocky way,” West said.
The topic was briefed in December at a Housing and Homelessness Solutions Committee meeting that most signators of the memo were unable to attend. Councilman Bazaldua, who signed the memo and attended the December meeting, called it an ambush riddled with theatrics.
District 2 Councilman Jesse Moreno, who chairs the housing committee, rebuffed that characterization.
“It’s been said that I refused to place this item on the agenda, and I just want to get one thing out there,” Moreno said last week. “I actually encouraged this to be placed on our agenda, and a different route was pursued.”
It’s been a tricky topic for reporters to cover.
Those who signed the memo are spending a lot of time defending it and explaining they just want to “have a conversation about options.” They’ve been accused of pushing an agenda or having ulterior motives. There has been speculation that city planners are trying to railroad a sweeping policy change that could destroy single-family neighborhoods. And those who support reducing minimum lot sizes have accused the Not in My Backyard crowd of fear-mongering.
A Dallas Morning News report on last week’s meeting was referred to by District 12 Councilwoman Cara Mendelsohn as “possibly the most inaccurate portrayal of a city hall meeting/discussion of a topic in the 4.5 years I’ve been on city council.”
As always, we encourage interested readers to watch the full briefing and discussion.
Dallas Staff Briefs Council on Minimum Lot Size Reduction Options
During last week’s meeting, Assistant Planning Director Andreea Udrea reviewed current zoning regulations, noting that 18 residential districts are based on minimum lot size. The current city’s zoning includes less than 5 percent multifamily, 2 percent duplex and townhomes, and about 20 percent planned developments, she said.
Udrea told council members that the market has a “big appetite for a diversity of a platted type of single-family.”
Sometimes an area is rezoned to multifamily when the developer really just wants to build duplexes, Udrea explained.
“There is no bucket in the code right now for the type of gentle infill … that the market wants,” she said. “The code is a little bit broken.”
Udrea explained that other cities are exploring minimum lot size reduction “to allow and create more housing options at different price points and for diverse households including multigenerational households, single parents, those who want to age in place, and students.”
City staff and several council members agreed that it makes sense to first adopt the ForwardDallas comprehensive land use plan update before strategizing about specific zoning changes.
ForwardDallas is slated to go before the council for adoption this summer.
Mendelsohn said she would like to see ForwardDallas define a single-family “placetype” that only includes single-family homes.
“When you start talking about context-sensitive design and gentle density … those are not the things I’m objecting to,” she said. “I don’t care what it looks like, if it matches the size of the house in the neighborhood. That’s not the point. It might be context-sensitive to look that way. It doesn’t matter what it looks like. The difference is I want a single-family neighbor, and the neighbors want single-family neighbors. They don’t want to have multifamily next to them.”
Mendelsohn said she’s concerned that an effort is underway to redefine “single-family” to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Carolyn King Arnold said city leaders have “terrorized and upset” people who think their established single-family neighborhoods are going to be infiltrated with multifamily units.
“For me, the answer is no for established neighborhoods,” Arnold said. “Let’s not do this hoodwink, bait-and-switch, gotcha approach to our constituents.”
Councilman Bazaldua apologized to the city planners who he said were being attacked for simply doing their jobs. The conversation about lot size was the result of a five-signature memo, not a bait-and-switch approach from staff, he said.
“I think it’s a really sad day in our city when policymakers with different perspectives and views can’t have complex policy discussions,” he said. “That’s what we were elected to do. I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all solution, but I also don’t think the conversation should be approached as a dichotomy.”
Opposing Viewpoints on Whether Minimum Lot Size Conversation Should Proceed
Homeownership is becoming less attainable and the need for rental units is great, West said, pointing to a Child Poverty Action Lab study.
“So in my mind any options that we have on the table to consider, we should be considering,” he said.
Highland Park and neighborhoods like Winnetka Heights have gentle density that works, West added.
Moments prior to last week’s briefing, West suggested that the matter be “punted” to the appointed City Plan Commission “before we try to cure cancer with this policy.”
Because of the way the item was posted, the briefing went on as planned and there was no clear consensus on the next steps.
District 13 Councilwoman Gay Donnell Willis later suggested it could be reviewed by the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee, a subcommittee of the CPC.
Mendelsohn made sure her fellow council members knew where she stood.
“Thank you for the conversation,” she said. “Not interested. Would not like to see that go to CPC. Thank you.”
District 11 Councilwoman Jaynie Schultz indicated her support for the discussion.
“This is not in any way, shape, or form a proposal,” she said, adding that it’s a chance to learn and see if an opportunity exists to “make Dallas better.”
Willis referenced the misinformation that’s been spread on the topic.
“I think to characterize this as trying to destroy single-family neighborhoods is just irresponsible,” she said. “I wish everyone would stop that. I think we need to explore it. We’re a big city and we’ve got an aging population. We’ve got some aging stock and we also have an opportunity for great growth.”
Councilwoman Blackmon said she wants to explore how the city should grow for the next generation.
“I think that’s a valid question that we should be asking our constituents,” she said. “This is the beginning of a long, long conversation.”
4 Comments
Leave a Comment
Most residents in Dallas understand and agree on the need for more affordable housing in our city. Where they differ is on the need to upzone single-family neighborhoods by right in Dallas to achieve it. Hindering the debate is the fact that while both sides continue to talk, it seems homeowners who have the most to lose are often the only ones listening.
To make matters worse, upzoning proponents use disparaging labels for those on the other side that have legitimate concerns and questions about Council Member West’s upzoning proposal and reducing minimum lot sizes. Childish labels like NIMBYs, noisy neighbors, the vocal minority, and cretin homeowners. Certainly not a welcoming gesture to encourage dialogue.
Adding to homeowner angst are other proposals currently under consideration at city hall including childcare and adult care “by right” in residential with the potential of commercial enterprises operating next to homes. It could be passed as early as next week by the entire council with little opportunity for public input and supporting data. The elimination of parking minimums is also being considered which if passed, could result in more congestion and crowding on residential streets. And of course, ForwardDallas, the city’s land use plan has no place type in the current version for single-family yet includes the addition of ADUs by right. Imagine homeowner confusion when they are told it is not a zoning document.
The city’s Planning and Urban Design staff tells us they have conducted more than 170 in-person meetings and 65 virtual events to solicit comments and suggestions from residents regarding the plan. However, many of these meetings and events have been limited, one-way exchanges where they do a majority of the talking but little listening. And what they and other appointed leaders at city hall will not tell you is that countless recommendations by homeowners and community groups for plan changes have been largely ignored.
I applaud the integrity, tenacity, and courage of those on the council like Council Members Mendelsohn, Arnold, Ridley, Atkins, Gracey, Moreno, and Stewart that routinely advocate for homeowners in Dallas. They are listening to their constituents and ignoring the calls from urbanists and developers to upzone single-family by right in our city. It is time for others on the council and city staff, and those in the media to do the same.
“Upzoning single-family neighborhoods by right” may not be actually allowed by Texas Law.
Austin’s 2019 Zoning rewrite was overturned by a Texas State Judge after local neighborhood advocates sued. (Acuna v City of Austin)
Austin lost again on appeal, and again after trying to pass smaller versions despite losing twice. After its third loss, Austin now thinks it has a handle on what it did wrong. It didn’t “give notice” of it’s meetings, it’s decided.
It’s since passed a similar ordinance in December to what is being discussed in Dallas (called the HOME Ordinance). No one has challenged it yet, which is lucky for the City.
The problem with these ordinances that seek to redefine existing zoning classifications isn’t really anything to do with “notice”, in my opinion. The real question is whether Texas Law, which zealously guards personal property rights, ever allows for rezoning more than a parcel at a time.
There’s a specific process spelled out in Texas law for rezoning a single parcel, involving notice, protests, and a super majority to override enough local protests.
Texas Law says nothing about changing the definitions of existing zoning classifications, thereby essentially rezoning tens of thousands of parcels simultaneously (“upzoning by right”).
With more cities interesting in doing so I anticipate the question will be put before a Texas judge if not the Legislature sooner rather than later for some clarification on the law.
Thank you for this article. Finally some truth is coming to light about the push for small mini-lots and the Forward Dallas Comprehensive Plan effort. Comments above by Jack Kocks also hit the nail on the head. Heads up Dallas: City staff and some leaders keep saying “Let’s just get Forward Dallas done,” but this hides the sweeping changes that the document intends to do and poses several very serious situations. First, Forward Dallas does not include any category at all for single family only neighborhoods. Instead, staff lumps ALL residential uses together, and proposes allowing multifamily up to TEN units to be built next to ANY single family home anywhere in the city. This would indeed set the stage to eliminate traditional single family neighborhoods. That empty lot near or next to you could be a multiplex if Forward Dallas proceeds as it is.- your current zoning won’t matter because Forward Dallas will have made it obsolete. Second, get ready for more bulldozing of small, affordable homes to make space for higher profit apartments and condos. Builders and develioers have no incentive or inclination to build context-sensitive, less profitable small homes, and the city has no legal means to mandate affordability or design. Staff recently admitted that Forward Dallas isnt about affordabilty. Third, state law requires that a city’s zoning MUST reflect the approved comprehensive plan. THIS is why staff “just wants to get Forward Dallas done”, as if completing it has no legal consequence. They know that if they can get it passed with the illusion that it would allow more “discussion”, they can use state law to force zoning for multi-family- everywhere – which they keep claiming they aren’t pushing. It definitely is bait-and-switch policy.
Forward Dallas needs to be stopped in its tracks before it proceeds any further.
https://douglasnewby.com/2024/01/the-myths-and-misinformation-promoted-by-forwarddallas/